+ Reply to Thread
Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 122

Thread: Formula Australasia 2006 Competition:- Updates, Pictures, Stories, and More

  1. #91
    hey all, my pictures are up at here. there is a big Adelaide bias to them, but the webpage shows thumbs if you want to skip thru them

    My bloody camera did the Canon trick of not recording a whole bunch of images, so even though I was down at the hairpin when Monash (I think) spun, then kept on spinning for 2 more loops trying to get back on the track, and got fantastic pics of all the dirt spraying out and the car looking like it was in a rally, they didn't record. I'm crushed.

    If anyone wants full resolution ones for printing, send me a PM or an email.
    - ARC '04 member (now retired ) - Bling Bling Competition winners FSAE-A '04 (and design winners)

  2. #92
    Geoff, nice of you to mention Swinburne once again. I recall from one of my business subjects a quote;
    'A mistake is a sign of new learning and skills, whilst 'doing correctly' is simply recognition of prior knowledge"

    It all comes down to perspectives, do you want to become a decent engineer in one year or rule the fsae universe for a decade. That said, I suppose if FSAE was meant to be a learning experience it would be done by mech eng uni students.

    Swinburne 2006 are proud of the fact that we concieved, designed and built a car in 12 months, surely thats the point.

    On the matter of cost event, my personal probs lie in that 350+ page document that 20% of the team worked on for 2 weeks. Surely instead of costing the whole car piece by piece a team can come up with a figure, say 11.5k, and show detailed costings on 5 compulsory items to show an appreciation of the money spent.

    congrats to all teams, and a big thanks to tufast for the encouragement and support.

    please note email address below, it's full of useful information.

    Tim Newton
    team principal
    Swinburne 2006

  3. #93
    Congrats to everyone, it was a great comp.

    I am seeking a few opinions however, especially from the teams running aero / 4 cylinder cars.

    Would you like to see the enduro track opened up a bit? This would mean tyre temps up, wings would have a more dominant effect, a greater range of cornering speeds would be experienced and (most importantly I think) the gearbox would actually be used.

    I personally thought enduro had too much of a go-kart feel and a lot of design and development into powerful engines and aerodynamics was wasted.

    I understand the need for safety (and I don't blame the track for UQ's placing) but I do think it would be more satifying for most teams.

    UQ Turbo

  4. #94
    I've gotta agree UQ Turb,

    Considering UQ and UOW were a pair of the only (?) turbo teams there we also had a bit of a gripe (to ourselves) about the tightness of the circut, we only touched 100% throttle for milliseconds on 1 or 2 of the enduro laps.

    Although its not all about straightline speed, RMIT & UWA had cars setup ideally for the track; light, tight & zippy, it worked in their favour.

    UOW were lucky enough to finish the 2nd enduro after the 1st failure, had the track been any faster i recon they wouldnt have made it to the end of the 2nd as well.

    *EDIT* My pics are up:here

  5. #95
    I, and I think the majority of the rest of the UoA team, would love the track to have been a bit more open. I know our car would've been much more suited to a faster track. Whether that means the track *should* be more open is a different story. I'm not sure how the officials decide on the track layout/how tight to make it, but it would be pretty useful to have an idea of what it would be like in the design stage of each year.

    In 2004 the track was apparently a lot more open, I wasn't around then but I have the results and I see UoW set the fastest autocross time with a 39.3(were you turbo back then?), which is considerably faster than the times I saw this year, which IIRC was around 47.? for UWA. That is a pretty significant difference, almost enough to make the difference between taking the weight penalty of a 4cyl, sc or turbo and maybe some wings/other aero; versus building the lightest car possible.

    I know we'll be taking a good look at our data from the event and our experiences from it and having a good hard look at what direction we're going to take next year, I just hope we don't turn up next year with 50hp, 180kg, and gearing to 95km/h to find the track doesn't have any cones on it
    Malcolm Graham
    University of Auckland '06-'09

  6. #96
    Starter ran at 17V. Pretty sure that everythign else did too - no regulation down to 12V. Li-Polymer, not Li-Ion if memory serves.
    Li-Ion using a polymer substrate, akin to lead acid vs SLA. Yes a slightly different technology.

    Starters couldn't give a monkeys.
    As long as it doesn't get too hot and melt magnet wire insulation coating. Current draw will go up ~30%. I imagine, that starters are well engineered to handle the abuse people give them and you're probably right, they couldn't give a rat's ass. But if you're designing your own coils, etc....heat is the biggest enemy.

    Fuel pumps are fuel-cooled and won't mind the over-voltage. Not sure whether they'd even draw extra power given the same regulated pressure.
    good point.

    Tweak the dwell-time on the coils, tweak the peak&hold cycle on the injectors and they won't care or use any extra power.

    ECUs are internally regulated down, won't mind, and don't add significantly to you vehicle's power draw.
    Electronics are rated for specific voltages, and abusing the maximum limits can get you into trouble. In this case it seems fine. But, I would consult with the ECU mfg. to see what the max input V before trusting a blanket statement. But automotive electronics can withstand higher and higher voltages, without consequence, if the designers used those parts. Power draw can go up, because the regulator can waste power as heat (depending on type), But is probably insignificant.

    Cooling fan will most probably like the 17V - so long as you're not after passenger-car longevity.

    What's with this trying to do engineering in lbs anyhow? Almost as bad as 'doing government' in french...
    I converted, why can't you convert back! You guys are too blame for lbs anyway.
    UNM FSAE 2003 to 2005

  7. #97

  8. #98

  9. #99
    I'd like to quantify the track speeds. I suspect most would be surprised by the figures.

    Could someone from either Woolongong, Western Australia, or RMIT help me please?

    Could you please post the length (m) of the endurance course, the top speed reached in endurance, and the fastest lap time in endurance of your fastest driver.

    Could you post these for 2004, 2005, and 2006 FSAE-A (not really interested in overseas comps)

    Thanks in Advance


  10. #100
    Originally posted by ad:

    sad shot that one Brinn
    Sure is mate, I havent seen any others yet...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts